Ladies and gentlemen, who do we make zeppelins relevant

I don't think they will ever make a comeback, better spend your energy bringing something good like Concord back.

i don't think they'll rise again in our lifetime

maybe once we use up the land and the sea and the rich need somewhere to live that isn't in space

>>56998490
>good
>Concord
Speed isn't everything, son.

>>56998467
>>>/n/991680

because they are neither of the two.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AeroLift_CycloCrane

>>56998517

Someone doesn't believe in Sanic

>>56998467
>profitable
Good one.

>>56998467
Hindenburg ruined blimps and zeppelins forever.

>>56998467
How the fuck do you land that thing.

How fast were these things?

>>56998721
You don't.

>>56998657
It's not like zeppelin service record was particularly impressive even without Hindenburg.

>The United States rigid airship program was based at Lakehurst Naval Air station, New Jersey. USS Shenandoah (ZR-1) was the first rigid airship constructed in America, and served from 1923 to 1925, when it broke up in mid-air in severe weather, killing 14 of the crew. USS Los Angeles (ZR-3) was a German airship built for the United States in 1924. The ship was grounded in 1931, due to the Depression, but was not dismantled for over 5 years. The sister ships Akron and Macon both crashed. The Akron was flown into the sea in bad weather and broke up. Over seventy were killed, including one of the US Navy's proponents of airships, Rear Admiral William A. Moffett. Macon also ended up in the sea when it flew into heavy weather with unrepaired damage from an earlier incident, but the introduction of life-jackets following the loss of the Akron meant only two lives were lost.
4 out of 5 US zeppelins crashed, nice fucking job

>>56998815
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfUlNvLMXmM

>just noticed it seems legacy captcha has been disabled.

>>56998733
60 mph or so, plus or minus wind speed depending on direction.

Which, consequently, means that you can do jack shit against a gale except get out of its way in advance.

>>56998467

The big one is to find a gas that's both safe, lighter than air and relatively inexpensive. Helium reserves are kind of tight and hydrogen is notoriously unsafe.

What do these even offer over other methods of transportation? Planes, ships, cars, helicopters, and bikes basically cover everything. If you only want to admire the scenery you can always take a hot air balloon up. Although hot air balloons have the same kinds of drawbacks that blimps and zeppelins have. They can get caught in a gust of wind and go off course.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOtG_57qm_U

>>56998965
At the moment? Oversized cargo. Planes, trucks and railroads have severe restrictions on the dimensions, while helicopters have ludicrous fuel consumption and severe restrictions on weight.

File: 82d.jpg (578KB, 1000x755px) Image search: [Google]

578KB, 1000x755px

>>56998517
>Speed isn't everything, son.

when did the zeppelin company go out of business anyway?

>>56998517
This, the fact that one of the pilots decided to check into a hotel without landing and parking his plane first actually had little to do with it being scraped.
There was just no profit in it anymore with fuel prices rising and maintenance on old airframes to keep up with.

Cruise ships.
Cruise airships.
????
Profit!

>>56999833
Safety issues aside, I doubt enough people are willing to shell out enough money for this to be profitable.

Consider that a modern cruise ship takes 2000+ passengers and features entertainment from concert venues to golf courses, while the largest airships were roughly the same size but took like 50 with the amenities limited to a lounge and a dining room. (Of course, making a rigid airship is cheaper than making a cruise liner, but not 40 times cheaper)

>>56998467
russians are trying
but they need a truck following it around to properly land, which defeats the purpose

>>56998916
>60 mph or so
basically oceanic liner in the sky
if it will be 90% safe it would make crazy money

>>57000563
The absolute madmen! What's next, a blimptrain?

>>57000593
>ocean liner
>60 mph

>90% safe
As in, 1 in 10 flights ends in a crash?

Lay off the crack bruh.

>>57000542
is it even possible with mdoern materials to make it smae size as a liner and keep it in the sky without breaking in half?
lift isn't an issues , it is possible, but no idea if it's possible to make strong enough with this size and weight

>>57000652
i'm pretty sure stats for planes is about 70%
for cars it's less than 55%

>>57000593
1/10 having some kind of problem is WAY too much to be viable. Forget passengers for right now, how would you even find pilots willing to fly these things constantly?

File: 1403729412712.png (39KB, 179x181px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 179x181px

>>57000691
either this is the worst b8 ever or god forbid you really are like this irl

>>56998467
As soon as someone is willing to invent $50 billion in R&D over 20+ years to make them reasonably competitive with planes, cars, trucks and ships, all of which have hundreds of billions in R&D over the decades.

I'm fairly certain that they'd be a very viable alternative to all of the above, depending on purpose, I doubt anyone is willing to risk that money, at least in the private sector.

>>57000700
same way steam train operators were found

Start the Fourth Reich

>>57000740
>a very viable alternative to all of the above, depending on purpose
russians develop them to deliver cargo into hard to reach northern regions cheaply
helicopters make bread as expansive as oranges there

>>57000691
>i'm pretty sure stats for planes is about 70%
>for cars it's less than 55%

>round trip from work to home and back
>110% chance of crashing

>>57000834
I think what he's trying to say is given the same amount of people cars crash far more often. Although plane crashes are extremely rare in commercial craft, he's probably factoring in private aircraft.

>>57000834
>55% chance of crashing twice is 110%
that's not how it works but yes, it would be a very high chance.

>>57000886
>Although plane crashes are extremely rare in commercial craft
they blow them up these days, and just today being almost crashed in russia
also there was 3 helicopters crashes in two months, early this year 2 migs 29 and one su27 crashed in a span of 3 months

worldwide statistics are terrible, it doesn't have to be EVERYONE IS DEAD case everytime

File: Hindenburg_burning[1].jpg (3MB, 3000x2283px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3000x2283px

Pretty sure the 2014-15 remasters were very profitable

>>56998490
>le concorde meme

File: Capture.png (17KB, 536x392px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 536x392px

>>57000956
>worldwide statistics are terrible

There are over 100,000 flights PER DAY (*all* zeppelin flights combined numbered less), that's just commercial airlines, without private and military aircraft, and you think one or two accidents per month is "terrible"?

>>57000756
If you mean boiler explosions, these were extremely rare. Driving a steam train slowly killed you with soot, temperature and noise, but then, what didn't at that time?

>>56998467
I can only see some kind of revival for the ultra-rich, with zeppelins that are basically flying yachts. Too bad that luxury usually equals mass, and that requires a massive zeppelin.

>>57001242
Cars

>>57000670
Most rigid airship crashes were due to hitting the terrain, not breaking up in midair. Modern radars will make that way less likely even if you build the airship using the same 1920s tech.
However, you'll still have to avoid strong winds and gtfo the general area if there's a hurricane coming (since an airship on the ground is almost as fragile as in the sky), which makes planning difficult.

>>57001340
During the heyday of steam locomotives, cars either did not exist or were deathtraps.

File: s_a37_OL753001.jpg (68KB, 991x625px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 991x625px

most airship crashes aren't as fatal as airplane crashes. During the same time period that the zeppelins coexisted with passenger transport aircraft (20s and 30s), more people died in crashing airplanes.

If you fill them with helium like america did there's not even a danger of explosion. Put solar cells on top of them and you have a very efficient, long-duration platform for all kinds of work high up.

one of the crazy things about the hindenburg disaster, when you stop to think about it, isn't that so many people died (its total death toll is easily eclipsed by most modern airline disasters), but the fact that actually quite a few people made it out of the aircraft alive.

>>57001580
>During the same time period that the zeppelins coexisted with passenger transport aircraft (20s and 30s), more people died in crashing airplanes.

That's not the case when you take deaths per trip or deaths per kilometer. There were maybe a dozen civilian zeppelins ever made, while passenger aircraft by the 1930s numbered in the thousands.

>>57001580
>Put solar cells on top of them and you have a very efficient, long-duration platform for all kinds of work high up.

The point of a zeppelin is that its internal structure allows it to use powerful engines and fly at a fairly high speed. If you just want some kind of instrument platform floating in the sky, you don't need a rigid airship with its additional complexity and limited altitude, a regular blimp will do.

>>57001580
>If you fill them with helium
No fuck. Enough Helium is wasted already. We don't need to go around filling large balloons with it, too.

Eventually we will run out of it. The reserves Helium is currently obtained from is not endless.

>>57001987
We can build a really big zeppelin and fly to the sun to scoop up more helium.

File: maxresdefault (4).jpg (53KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 1280x720px

They're trying.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mg-RPTiVa_Q

The only thing these are good for is heavy lift, though.

How do they dal with storms?

>>57000700
Make the service only for india and china? They give a shit about people, they give a shit about themselves if you pay them 1 dollar above the rest, and if they die no one else care either.

>>57002125
About as well as hot air balloons.

File: z207-07_1023vs.0.jpg (121KB, 1280x854px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 1280x854px

>>56998505
I feel sorry for you grandpa, you won't witness dat ass in the sky

>>57002180
The giant flying ass.

>>57002105
>>57002180
That's an advanced blimp, not a rigid airship, though.

>>57002161
A hot air balloon is completely helpless, an airship can at least detect the storm with its radio and weather radar and gtfo at 100+ km/h.

File: newyork5uh3.jpg (78KB, 674x663px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 674x663px

>>56998467
Bomb New York with an army of them.

>>56998467
Wmd.

If you shoot down a missile, it's mostly gone. If you shoot down a zeppelin, it going to rain fire everywhere.

>>57001449
>>57001340
During the time when steam locomotives were common, the closest thing to cars were horse carriages, and those indeed could kill people... mostly by running them over, or the horses getting out of control, and so on.

>tfw you hear KIROV REPORTING and your anti-air capabilities aren't up to snuff yet
>tfw you hear that fucking skittering sound of terror drones

Something I had not considered before. Apparently this is possible?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_airship

>>56998505
actually the rich will stay in earth while the ship off the poor to work on the mines,I mean the space colony

The dream is dead, Hans, give it up.

>>57002180
THICC

>>57002803
Using materials strong enough to withstand air pressure from outside will probably make it too heavy.
I mean, unless you make it really really big. Since the volume increases quicker than the surface area..

>>57002698
A helium-filled zeppelin won't rain fire anywhere, helium doesn't burn. Even a hydrogen-filled one would mostly burn up in the air. The remaining fuel could burn, sure, but zeppelins can use safer fuel than airplanes - and even airplanes don't cause destruction on a massive scale unless you purposefully fly them into tall buildings.

>>57002803
>Apparently this is possible?
>links an article with considerations as to why it's completely unrealistic

A vacuum airship the size of Hindenburg would have to withstand around 500000 tons of pressure from the surrounding air, all to lift a measly 200 tons - less than an An-225.
Oh, and if its structure fails, it'll essentially be an inverse thermobaric bomb.

>>57002994
>really big
Holy shit, you're right. Time to make an airship the size of rhode island.

>>57003201
>vacuum airship the size of rhode island

~4 billion tons of lift capability is nothing to scoff at

>>56998490
Concorde will never return, profit margins will never allow it.

The best thing to hope one gets restored to fly at events like the Vulcan did.

File: BladeWTF.gif (589KB, 245x204px) Image search: [Google]

589KB, 245x204px

>>56998522
>08/08/16

File: tumblr_m4qvgzNN571qaxs5xo1_500.jpg (56KB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 500x281px

>>57003053
Jesus! You want to blow us all to shit, Sherlock?

>>57003457
Some boards move a lot slower than others

File: hqdefault.jpg (17KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 480x360px

>>56998467
We can't.

No one wants to fly on the Hindenburg 2.0

>>57003457
Some boards are very slow but that isn't even that impressive. Check out /po/ sometime. The oldest thread currently standing is over 2 years old.


At one point /po/ regulars asked moot to lower the bump limit to like 10 posts so people would stop shadow bumping threads to make them last indefinitely.

>>57003498
>>57003530
Seems kind of ironic, it being a transportation board and all.

Mine asteroids andt the moon and use some of the helium for float

duh